HLE blogger Sir Geoffrey Bindman examines the debate over a free press
"The need for a free press has been proved over and over again by the revelation of major public scandals which would not otherwise have come to light. The disclosure by the Daily Telegraph and The Guardian of dishonest expenses claims by MPs and the hacking of telephones and e-mails are two egregious examples.
Freedom of expression is universally acknowledged as a fundamental human right. Yet, as Isaiah Berlin has taught us, ethical values are sometimes in conflict with each other. Where two values cannot be reconciled, a balance has to be struck to give maximum effect to both of them.
The UN agreed in 1948, in Art 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Yet Art 12 of the Declaration prohibits arbitrary interference with “privacy, family, home or correspondence” or “attacks upon his honour or reputation”. These principles, in slightly different language, were adopted in the European Convention on Human Rights and in the Human Rights Act 1998, binding on the UK and its judiciary.
If Art 12 is to be given effect, it must restrict the freedom granted by Art 19. And it applies to the media as it does to everyone else. Indeed, the need to impose some limits on the absolute freedom of the press to publish whatever they choose is hardly controversial. It could not expect to be permitted to incite crime or racial hatred, or to publish defamatory falsehoods. The crucial questions are: where should the limits be drawn and how should they be enforced...?”
Continue reading at www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
